手机

这是一部反映真情的电影，它的角度很特别，说的故事也十分贴近生活。

一开篇，是一段矿工的戏，吕桂花问丈夫何时会回家，在通讯不便的情况下，她跑老远的路，到镇里通过电话给丈夫带了一个话，丈夫能否听到，妻子都是不确定的，她的问候，丈夫更无法回答。而她也只是想跟丈夫说，自己想他了。当这一个妻子的问候，通过矿上的广播在全矿区的上空飘荡时，矿上所有的男人都笑了，这是多大的安慰啊，最辛苦的时候能想到自己的家人，有什么能够比这更让人感到幸福的呢？

之后的情节种种，感情一直是一个主线，不管是夫妻间，情人间，还是奶奶和孙子，喜欢要钱的兄弟，或者是帮忙做活的乡亲。一丝浓重的感情线，一直贯穿着始终。

而另一方面，这又是一部反映现实的影片。现实，作为一条更浓重，甚至近乎到强硬的线索，不断压迫着影片里的角色，压迫着人与人之间的'真情'。从最初的通信不便，到后来的有车，有房，有手机，有钱。人与人之间的距离'近'了，但反而 '近的喘不过气来了'。手机可以说是一个关键点，而它实际上更是一个象征，象征着现代生活中，人们所承受的各个方面的压力。现代的人，在生活中，工作中，不断被各种各样的事情纠缠，打磨，更像是在縫隙中，维持着心中的感情。痛苦，折磨，对抗和逃避，人被压得喘不过气来。这也是为何很多人，觉得这部影片'恐怖'。

写到这里，话算是说了一半，根据每个人生活经历的不同，这部片子自然会反映出不同的东西，而因它的诙谐幽默，让此片也具备娱乐片的效果，所以在我看来，是难得一遇的佳作。

建议看看'手机'的小说，文字的东西，体会起来，会更透彻

为毛要为这一般般的片子写评论呢，因为看了半天影评，发现基本分为两种意见-------男人精神紧张感觉揭了自己的短，说危险；女人面对汹涌现实，要妥协。

对，没错儿，人性是喜新厌旧。人道主义起见，我们表压抑人性，男人要出去找人就去吧，女人要宽容，只要不怕坏家庭安定团结你就去吧。

不知道这些人为毛要结婚。可能很多人只想要个室友，如果室友离开，再找室友麻烦，一样的程序再来一次，累，那干脆就这么将就着吧。所以啊，就有了什么灰色的蓝色的红色的知己之类。

生活能不能简单点儿呢？有病就是把原本简单的弄复杂了。

爱就好好爱，不爱就死开。

說穿了，馮小剛執導的《手機》不過是一部有關外遇和謊言的電影。


筆者本來設想這是一部批判新世代通訊科技－手機的故事，但只要剝下表層的營銷包裝和認清於電影裡刻意營造的有關手機的片面判詞，我們不難發覺本片就探討手機之害這一預設母題完全不夠深度而單純是一個晃子。


本片的主戲在於電視節目名嘴嚴守一如何糾纏於有了自己孩子的前妻文娟、激情外遇武月和理想妻子沈雪三個女人之間的故事。


上面的澄清旨在讓觀眾莫要錯誤對號，而並非把電影判成掛羊頭賣狗肉之流。整個故事其實都繫於手機之上，只是手機的角色並非主題卻是促進劇情的工具。電影的每個轉折，比如是嚴守一與前妻離婚、他與沈雪的最後分別以至奶奶最後過身的姍姍來遲，均得算到手機的頭上；甚至談及電影的另一原素－謊言也是緊密的連袂到手機之上，事關嚴守一於電影裡撒的每一個謊言均是有關手機的，故此，就編劇的完整統一性而言，本片確是一絕。


從上面可見，本片的故事絕不新穎甚至說成過份簡單也未嘗不可，但只要小心留意細部劇情，筆者又發現當中不乏佳句。


比如是嚴守一作為電視節目名嘴本身就是個絕妙設置，隨著劇情的發展，嚴守一主持的節目【有一說一】便正好有對應的清談主題。說謊、心裡有病這兩場便恰到好處地對嚴守一當下的處境作了輕鬆幽默的自嘲。這種以對白闡明母題的手法本來流於單純直接屬低手之作，唯配合起主角職業的預設，又反過來為這種淺白的手法提供了非常合理的解釋，故這種借力打力的編劇技巧就確是值得一讚的地方了。


其他有關嚴守一如何「處心積慮」撒謊的設計也同時是表現馮小剛幽默本色的佳句。另外相加起筆者最欣賞的中國演員－葛優精湛的演出，《手機》絕對是一部國內罕有的具通俗娛樂性的佳作。

看完电影《手机》，突然之间对手机铃声有一种心理障碍。不是自己，因为自己已经几乎二十四小时关机，而是坐车回去的时候每听到别人的手机铃声响起，心里便浮起那句话“做人要厚道”。实在无奈。看着前面旁边的乘客若无其事地打手机或者发短信，心里便想，每一个人的手机里面，有多少多少的秘密？

剧情不想多叙述。网上一找便铺天盖地的是。在网站看到有一句话：“敢带老婆看手机吗”。看到就笑起来。这是什么问题？婚外恋的情节总是引起人们无尽的探索兴趣和闲聊话题。人总是喜新厌旧。用电影里张国立那句标准的四川话来说：“二十多年睡在一张床上，确实有点儿审美疲劳”，最贴切不过。

而片子里张国立和葛优两人各自在对方与情人通话、见面后看似告诫的两句“做人要厚道”恰恰是全剧最大的亮点也是最意味深长的台词。看到冯小刚黑色幽默的精髓。

婚姻就由手机的来电和短信而破裂。看的时候心里在想，做不慎密就不要引火自焚。笑。男人总是不满足。看电影前与鹤鹤聊天时他也说，其实每个男人都会认为一辈子只有一个女人的人生是不完整的，只是现实和想法未必会相同而已。我表示赞同。这也是题外话了。

分析一下三个主要的女人吧。

于文娟。严守一的妻子。她是倔强的，坚强而亦脆弱的。不肯认输亦干脆认输。感觉她傻就傻在看到了武月（范冰冰）发来的消息让严守一晚上睡觉别脱内衣以后依然要亲眼所见那一排齿痕。其实消息本身已经说明问题。她心里也是清楚的。何苦非要看一看炽烈的哪一个印记再把伤口彻底撕裂？但接下来离婚，独自剩下孩子并抚养他的过程印证了她的坚强和倔强。让我欣赏。

沈雪。三个女人里最傻最笨的一个。疑神疑鬼，小心眼儿，不讲理。怎么看也有上海女人的“作”劲，但是傻多了。男人的包要每天翻，手机要查，还要到电信局去检查通话记录。这样的女人，用上海话说就是“拎不清”。任谁都讨厌这种间谍似的人，没事儿都被她折腾出事儿来了。要背着你外头找人，就被你这么整天查的，还能管得住？最后分手是必然的。

武月。青春美貌、前卫风情。三个女人里最聪明的一个。虽然一直不喜欢范冰冰。懂得吸引男人，也懂得抓住自己的利益。她应该是爱过严守一的。在青海看严的节目会暗自流泪。那个镜头拍得很好。但是最终失望心冷。三年多的青春代价，她聪明地找到方式问严守一要回。够绝够狠。让我赞叹。

回到最终，有点女人=恶魔的感觉。但难道“审美疲劳”就真的无法忍受？无法忍受为何结婚？结婚的时候懂得家庭和责任么？不是任何事情都由得人去后悔的。

这一句“做人要厚道”，引申直观开来就联系到“责任”和“良心”。虽然这个社会已经越来越多的人忘记这两个词。

女：“开会呢吧 ？”
男：“对。”
女：“说话不方便吧 ”
男：“啊。”
女：“那我说你听。”
男：“行。”
女：“我想你了。”
男：“噢。”
女：“你想我吗？”
男：“嗯。”
女：“你昨天真坏。”
男：“嗨。”
女：“你亲我一下 ”
男：“嗯，啧。”
女：“那我亲你一下，‘啵’，听见了吗？”
……

http://www.blogcn.com/user5/vivianisvivian/blog/894177.html

        Cell Phone (2003) marks the culmination of the popular cultural preoccupation with infidelity. A famous TV talk show host Yan Shouyi, tries without success to maintain the delicate network of lies and concealments that allow him to have two different mistresses in addition to his estranged wife.
        The story starts in a small town where the town’s first telephone, which signifies the modernization in China, has just been installed. In a small village nearby, a young man Yan Shouyi takes a peasant woman to the town to make a phone call to her husband. About twenty years later, the middle-aged Yan Shouyi has already become a popular TV talk show host in a big city, owning a wife, a nice job, a BMW, and a mistress. His life and work would not have taken this path if he had not been equipped with a cell phone, the latest wireless communication technology. But the Cell Phone also causes the end of his marriage: his wife accidentally answers a phone call from his mistress complaining about his absence from a date.
        After getting a divorce, Yan starts a new relationship with a college teacher, Shen Xue, while still occasionally dating his old mistress, Wu Yue. On the several occasions when his double life is about to be discovered by Shen, Yan deftly covers the truth with lies. His close friend Fei Muo, a university professor and producer for his television show, is also involved in a similar love affair with a graduate student, which is soon discovered by his wife. Eventually, Yan’s infidelity is discovered by Shen who sees a digital picture of Yan and Wu making love, a picture taken by the digital camera built into Wu’s new cell phone. Not only is Yan’s relationship destroyed, his career also ends as Wu threatens to expose their relationship and takes over his position as the talk show host. At the end of the film, throwing his cell phone into fire, Yan swears that he will never again own one. Then after a dip-to-black, the film welcomes a second ending, Yan’s niece, who is also from the same village, becomes a cell phone saleswoman and comes to demonstrate the latest product to his uncle Yan. (Zhang, 135)
        Given the obvious Marxist bent of Cell Phone’s rhetoric and its fable-like narrative of the dangers of commodity fetishism, one might easily conclude the film as criticism of the effects of rapid economic transformation in urban China, and denial of male dominance. However, underneath this reading which is merely based on the resolution provided by the film, we can find both the cultural underpinning and ideological impacts of the film, whether they are conscious directorial decisions or not, are the other way around.
        The film is based on patriarchal and post-socialist assumptions in the first place. The leading character, wealthy, successful TV host Yan Shouyi, is representing the controlling patriarchal order and the ruling class. The young and charming mistress Wu Yue, on the other hand, is a sexual object and an oppressed worker reinforcing and perpetuating an exploitative capitalistic scheme. Yu Wenjuan, the pregnant wife and later the mother of Yan’s only child, is a cheap labor whose family value in undertaking housework and fostering children is totally underestimated and neglected by both the character Yan and the filmmaker Feng. Shen Xue, the successor of Yu and Wu, is a wonderful replacement of the two women, since she functions as both mistress and wife and has the highest total value. Therefore, marriage and divorce follow the rules of product exchange. The values of women as sexual commodities are estimated by their male owner, based on evaluation and grading of their sexual attractiveness and productivity among others.
        In the second place, the narration neglects and degrades women’s family values.
While there are scenes of Yan Shouyi working at the TV station and attending meeting with his colleagues, which confirms his value in production, there is hardly any scene of the women working. In addition, among the values of women, the four structures proposed by Mitchell, sexuality is emphasized against reproduction, and socialization. While there are a lot of scenes of Yan Shouyi flirting and having fun with her young and passionate mistress Wu Yue, there is hardly any scene of him and the older and less attractive wife spending time together. The cinematic representation of the reproduction process of Yan’s first wife is almost absent in the film. Having been pregnant for months, Yu Wenjuan did not inform her husband at all, and Yan is only informed several months after divorce by his ex-brother-in-law that his first wife had already given birth to their baby and needs money from him.
        Hiding behind socialization of children and the new motherhood are deeper oppressions of women. Spending a lot of time and energy nurturing the kid, the woman Yu did not get the compensation in improving her own social status; instead she lost her job in the big city after she went back to her hometown. As the value of socialization of children is often neglected by the society, this part of the plot is also omitted in the film, and is only told through Yan’s narration, serving as an obstacle that hinders and adds drama to Yan’s women pursuing career. As her value looks invisible, Yan replaces his first wife not with his mistress whose value only lies in sexuality, but with a beautiful college professor Shen Xue who seems to be a more serious and proper wife candidate, but also has the sexual disposition of a mistress.
        From Yan’s perspective, all the three women can be valued on a materialistic basis. Women become commodities, and their sexual attractiveness, job, education status are all counted in their exchange value while man is the buyer who has the right of choice because of his economic power and dominance in a patriarchal society.
        Extramarital relationship is a fatal violation of Chinese social norms and a tradition that often punishes the woman for such “immoral transgression” (Cui 181). In Cell Phone, the mistress Wu Yue, became the conflict's cause and the incarnation of immorality instead of the Male character Yan Shouyi. As an advanced prostitute, she would love to sell her body in exchange for money and power. And, ultimately, she threatens to replace Yan Shouyi as a television talk show host by using the photo she took in her cell phone. Thus, Yan Shouyi becomes the victimized character pitied by the audiences instead of the evil woman.
        The resolution of the film, Yan Shouyi’s abandoning of the cell phone, which may seem like a self-criticism, is actually a displacement and denial of the guilt and regret by reprimanding the modern technology and communication device. Cell phone becomes the scapegoat for Yan Shouyi, the hypocritical and immoral character, and therefore the patriarchal and capitalist order behind the story, which was supposedly to be criticized, is actually being extended sympathy.
        Depicted as the direct cause of all the conflicts between the protagonist and the three female characters, cell phone, the symbol of post-socialist modernity seems to be criticized. Rui concludes that Cell Phone addresses the subject through the director’s satirical take on consumerism and his exposure of the moral crises and ethical issues brought by expansion of high technology into our everyday lives (Zhang, 136). However, in the first 90 minutes of the film, a fantasy of the patriarchal and post-socialist (capitalist) utopia was already created for the male audiences: mistress as a symbol and accessory of urban success. Female audiences were also given a utilitarian fantasy integrated with the narcissistic and masochistic visual pleasure: being someone’s mistress is the shortcut to wealth and success. Thus, the film belittles the value of women, and denies women's independent existential meaning.
        In addition to the narrative constructed to propagate the attractive image of the “successful personage” that has represented the “new ideology” of contemporary China, an image that endorses a reality of growing class differences and income disparities, Feng Xiaogang adopts a lot of meta-cinematic elements in Cell Phone to offset the seriousness of his own criticism, a technique abundantly used in his early films. There are ample shots within the TV station, such as the staff operating camera, and outtakes of the TV host Yan who says his lines wrong, that remind the audiences to question the authenticity of their own movie watching experience. There is also a lot of inserting advertisements for cell phones that deconstructs the movie’s final critical stance towards post-socialist modernity. As the audiences identify and follow the male protagonist throughout the film, they highly enjoy and celebrate his material wealth and “romantic affairs” brought about by his professional success in the patriarchal and post-socialist order. In the meantime, they also accept a message that all women, whether they are educated or not, college professor or press editor, wife or mistress, are all annexed to the life of men.
        As McGrath noticed, the basic narrative structure of Cell Phone already had become so common by the end of the 1990s as to constitute a cinematic genre in itself, a genre that offers fable-like narratives of the moral dilemmas confronted by protagonists facing dramatic changes in personal economics as well as libidinal possibilities in the reform era. In such films, a man takes on one or more extramarital lovers after achieving some sort of economic success and social elevation (McGrath, 98). In many cases, a man’s ability to defy his wife is supported by both his male role and some sort of economic success. Even though these films reveal the social issues of the oppression of women, they neither provide a solution nor hold a feministic point of view that attempt to liberate women. Instead, they stand in line with the successful male protagonists, and celebrate the current patriarchal and post-socialist status quo. In a word, these films are women-concerned, but not at all feminist films.
        Supposedly a subgenre of family melodrama that aims to criticize the social immorality and educate the audiences, the actual impact of the “cinema of infidelity” is rather doubtful. An example is the sex diary scandal of Han Feng, the former senior tobacco official, which culminates the “mistress fashion” in 2010. Even more dramatic than Feng’s films, the purported diary, written in graphic detail, includes boasts that Han was enjoying sex romps with many different women while taking bribes and attending banquets. Populated by Internet users, Han’s case is just one in a million of the government officials and the privileged stratum in Mainland China.